PDA

View Full Version : Economics True or false: State intervention tends to enable big business at citizens expense


Taco John
03-14-2010, 03:12 AM
Just curious what the general feel across the board on this particular question is.


The real phrasing of the question is as follows (character space constraints):

True or False:
State intervention tends to enable big buisiness at the expense of labor and consumers.

orange
03-14-2010, 03:46 AM
First.

Of course you already know the outcome of this poll.

Think back just a week or two ago. There were only 8 of us willing to identify ourselves as Democrats vs. 55 others.

The population of ChiefsPlanet is hardly representative of the nation. In fact, I doubt you could find a state that's ever been this red.

Chiefs red - how appropriate.

...

You want a poll with some teeth?

How about this: "IS THE POPE TOAST?"

Norman Einstein
03-14-2010, 07:10 AM
First.

Of course you already know the outcome of this poll.

Think back just a week or two ago. There were only 8 of us willing to identify ourselves as Democrats vs. 55 others.
The population of ChiefsPlanet is hardly representative of the nation. In fact, I doubt you could find a state that's ever been this red.

Chiefs red - how appropriate.

...

You want a poll with some teeth?

How about this: "IS THE POPE TOAST?"

I doubt that is a valid poll. It's hard to believe the ratio of liberal to other is 8:55. My read is that some of the liberals here are falling away from the party due to the current state of affairs.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2010, 10:10 AM
I doubt that is a valid poll. It's hard to believe the ratio of liberal to other is 8:55. My read is that some of the liberals here are falling away from the party due to the current state of affairs.

That's because they think Obama is too centrist.

oldandslow
03-14-2010, 10:58 AM
That's because they think Obama is too centrist.

Yes, I certainly do. Thank you for that insight. You get it.

Taco John
03-14-2010, 08:24 PM
First.

Of course you already know the outcome of this poll.



I know the outcome of this poll because any honest evaluation of the question will come out to be "true."

BucEyedPea
03-14-2010, 08:26 PM
Wow, some have a lot to learn. They have free-market capitalism confused with mercantilism and corporatism. Just like Marx had it confused.

Taco John
03-14-2010, 10:00 PM
This question reveals the core weakness (hypocrisy) of Democrat politics.

WoodDraw
03-15-2010, 02:31 AM
TJ posted a loaded poll to prove his own theories on government? Say it ain't so...

Taco John
03-15-2010, 02:41 AM
TJ posted a loaded poll to prove his own theories on government? Say it ain't so...


Loaded?

Taco John
03-15-2010, 02:42 AM
Are you talking about the fact that the health care bill is a corporate give away, and thus at this moment it's loaded because it's on the front of everyone's mind?

WoodDraw
03-15-2010, 02:51 AM
You had an idea in your head, and you wanted to confirm it in a way that makes you win. And no, I'm not talking about the health care bill because you said "state intervention". Perhaps you forgot what issue you were sucking off now?

Problems aren't black and white. What does "tend to" mean? 50%? 75%? I don't give a ****%?

Yes, certain state decisions do favor businesses, although I again don't have an idea in hell what "big" means. There are also state decisions that favor consumers.

You do the same thing every time you post. You make some outrageous argument, support it as far as your brain allows, and then run off saying well if that's what you believe, this isn't worth my time.

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 09:32 AM
WoodDraw, Taco is right on this. You may not like it, seeing your emotional outburst but it's true. We HAVE a mixed economy and that means it has state capitalism and mercantilism as a part of it.

And you know what, it isn't worth hours of time defending it with certain people because no one is going to change their mind.
And there's a limit to how much one can say on a BB in order to educate them. The case can only be built systematically and that
takes a book or classroom instruction.

patteeu
03-15-2010, 09:56 AM
WoodDraw, Taco is right on this. You may not like it, seeing your emotional outburst but it's true. We HAVE a mixed economy and that means it has state capitalism and mercantilism as a part of it.

And you know what, it isn't worth hours of time defending it with certain people but no one is going to change their mind.

What would be worth a few minutes of your time would be to stop by this thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223334) and post your recently-informed thoughts.

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 09:58 AM
What?

patteeu
03-15-2010, 10:25 AM
What?

I'm putting a bounty on your head.

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 10:29 AM
Huh?

RJ
03-15-2010, 11:00 AM
If I'm understanding the question correctly...

In New Mexico we have a problem with the state offerering incentives to business that are greater than the return. The big story right now revolves around the film industry because of the high profile and Bill Richardson hatred, but it's not the only one.

NewChief
03-15-2010, 11:11 AM
I'm putting a bounty on your head.

ROFL

Taco John
03-15-2010, 11:39 AM
You had an idea in your head, and you wanted to confirm it in a way that makes you win. And no, I'm not talking about the health care bill because you said "state intervention". Perhaps you forgot what issue you were sucking off now?

Problems aren't black and white. What does "tend to" mean? 50%? 75%? I don't give a ****%?

Yes, certain state decisions do favor businesses, although I again don't have an idea in hell what "big" means. There are also state decisions that favor consumers.

You do the same thing every time you post. You make some outrageous argument, support it as far as your brain allows, and then run off saying well if that's what you believe, this isn't worth my time.


You're not very good at political discussion, so I wasn't actually looking for one with you. There are others here who can actually take a point and respond to it - even taking in new information and adjusting their response to match the new data. It's amazing.

banyon
03-15-2010, 11:43 AM
Loaded?

You really don't think that your question is loaded? Really?:spock:

Taco John
03-15-2010, 11:46 AM
You really don't think that your question is loaded? Really?:spock:

You mean because the answer is obviously true?

banyon
03-15-2010, 11:54 AM
You mean because the answer is obviously true?

Well, you stated it. I mean that de facto makes it correct, right?

Taco John
03-15-2010, 12:03 PM
Well, you stated it. I mean that de facto makes it correct, right?


So you've got nothing, then?

"Loaded question!"

"Whatever do you mean?"

"Well... Well... Well... You're a poopy face!"


Good discussion guys.

banyon
03-15-2010, 12:08 PM
So you've got nothing, then?

"Loaded question!"

"Whatever do you mean?"

"Well... Well... Well... You're a poopy face!"


Good discussion guys.

I think we've had this discussion innumerable times. You think the entire discipline of political economy should be able to be boiled down to simplistic "true or false" questions and then you've scored some points or something. I think it's a little more nuanced than that.

On this occasion I thought it was more interesting to point out that you didn't realize an obviously loaded question was poised as such. Now you don't want to discuss that because it doesn't meet with your goal of scoring your points on your binary test and it's not to your advantage.

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 12:09 PM
Yep! He's got nuthin' but he's gonna demand a fully written thesis or court brief that meets his standards to still remain unconvinced while putting you through a pile of completely unecessary work.

patteeu
03-15-2010, 12:26 PM
Big business is better able to both influence regulation on the front end and navigate it on the back end than small business so it seems pretty obvious that regulation tends to favor big business, relatively speaking. Since most individuals work for small business in this country, I think the answer to the poll is yes.

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 12:30 PM
Big business regulates it's competition so the small guys can never compete against them. The side of anti-trust we never hear about is that it was the competitors that pushed for anti-trust against others. In the case of Standard Oil, they ended up with a larger market share after anti-trust legislation. Another example of unintended consequences.

banyon
03-15-2010, 12:44 PM
Yep! He's got nuthin' but he's gonna demand a fully written thesis or court brief that meets his standards to still remain unconvinced while putting you through a pile of completely unecessary work.

I don't "demand a thesis or court brief". I do however expect that people who want to put forward a claim will make some token attempt to defend it and not just ignore criticisms if they are inconvient or play some juvenile game of ignoring the person.

Norman Einstein
03-15-2010, 12:53 PM
So you've got nothing, then?

"Loaded question!"

"Whatever do you mean?"

"Well... Well... Well... You're a poopy face!"


Good discussion guys.

I think we've had this discussion innumerable times. You think the entire discipline of political economy should be able to be boiled down to simplistic "true or false" questions and then you've scored some points or something. I think it's a little more nuanced than that.

On this occasion I thought it was more interesting to point out that you didn't realize an obviously loaded question was poised as such. Now you don't want to discuss that because it doesn't meet with your goal of scoring your points on your binary test and it's not to your advantage.

Kids, why don't you take this to the playground?

orange
03-15-2010, 01:05 PM
TJ - How about some examples of "small governments" where "big business" doesn't run roughshod?

I could maybe list a couple of "small governments" where "big business" DID run roughshod, but you would just claim they weren't really small because the fact that "big business" ran things "proves" they were actually "big governments."

That's where the loading comes in.

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 01:06 PM
TJ - How about some examples of "small governments" where "big business" doesn't run roughshod?

Hong Kong

orange
03-15-2010, 01:15 PM
Hong Kong

China's not "big government?" ROFL

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 01:18 PM
China's not "big government?" ROFL

Hong Kong wasn't under them before and you can get examples from then.
I have no idea how much control China's govt exerts over them know, but as far as I can recall they were not going to change things there much. Beside China's become more capitalist than we are.

Taco John
03-15-2010, 01:43 PM
I think we've had this discussion innumerable times. You think the entire discipline of political economy should be able to be boiled down to simplistic "true or false" questions and then you've scored some points or something. I think it's a little more nuanced than that.

On this occasion I thought it was more interesting to point out that you didn't realize an obviously loaded question was poised as such. Now you don't want to discuss that because it doesn't meet with your goal of scoring your points on your binary test and it's not to your advantage.


Right. You think that it's nuanced, except for the part where you believe in "one-size-fits-all" government solutions where everybody is forced to participate or face the IRS. Let's not pretend that you have nuanced positions. Let's not pretend that you don't boil political economy into black or white, "participate or face prosecution."

Your nuance is only dressing. No substance there.

orange
03-15-2010, 01:58 PM
Beside China's become more capitalist than we are.

Yeah, right.

China’s champions: Why state ownership is no longer proving a dead hand

A decade ago, China’s state-owned sector looked like an economic disaster waiting to happen. In the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, average profit margins in Chinese state companies fell to close to zero, and many reported huge losses. The government felt it had no option but to embark on a brutal programme of closures that left tens of millions without jobs.

Fast-forward 10 years and the situation is almost unrecognisable. In 2007, the combined profit of the 150 or so companies controlled by the central government is expected to have reached Rmb1,000bn (£70bn, $140bn, €90bn). In the five years to 2008, this figure rose by 223 per cent. At the end of last year, the list of the world’s 10 most valuable companies contained four groups controlled by the Chinese state – even if this partly reflected the relatively high valuation of the Shanghai stock market.

What we are witnessing, in other words, is an experiment in capitalism that could challenge much of the conventional wisdom about state ownership. Plenty of countries have strong stateowned companies in semi-monopolies such as telecommunications or heavily regulated sectors such as energy and mining. Yet China is trying to create a series of leading public companies in industries exposed to cut-throat competition, where technology, design and marketing are crucial features – just the sort in which state-owned companies have typically suffered at the hands of private rivals.

http://www.gmupolicy.net/china/readings/FT%20article%20on%20SOE's.pdf



Meanwhile, across the straits harbour where they don't have stateowned companies (or universal suffrage, or freedom of the press, or a minimum wage):

Hong Kong's wealth gap widens since handover
Booming city now has one of the most inequitable pay situations in Asia

Updated: 11:40 a.m. MT June 28, 2007
HONG KONG — Hong Kong's wealth gap has increased markedly over the past decade under Chinese rule, making the affluent city one of the most inequitable places in Asia, according to new government statistics.

Hong Kong's Gini coefficient — a widely used measure of income disparity — increased to 0.533 in 2006 from 0.525 in 2001, the last available figure. It showed that Hong Kong's working poor were getting poorer or had not broadly benefited from the city's overall economic recovery.

In 1996, the figure stood at 0.518 on a scale where 0 represents perfect equality and 1 complete inequality. Taiwan, by comparison, had a figure of 0.326 in 2000. China's figure currently stood at 0.447, economists estimate.

"The Gini coefficient in Hong Kong is comparable to Mexico and is much higher ... than China and Indonesia," said Wong Hung, a social work academic at Hong Kong's Chinese University.

"In Hong Kong, we face the problem of the working poor and many people are now working in the low-wage and low-skilled sector and we don't have a minimum wage to protect those workers," he added.

...

According to a study by Oxfam and Hong Kong's Chinese University, the number of "working poor", or those living on less than HK$5,000 ($640) per month, half of Hong Kong's median household income, had risen to around 350,000 — 5 percent of the population — in 2006.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070715172339/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19289044/


So the questions are "which China has the "big government?" And which one is "enabling big business at citizens' expense?"

My guess is that mainland China has the "bigger government" and that Hong Kong is "enabling big business at citizens' expense." Am I right?

Oh, by the way - that last paragraph seems to indicate that your "success story" Hong Kong has a median household income of about $15,000. In one of the top commercial/business centers of the world. Alright, you conservatives. Would you take lowering your income to $15,000 in exchange for really free Free Enterprise?

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 02:25 PM
I guess you didn't know what I meant by capitalist?

Anyhow, Hong Kong is still listed as the freest economy in the world.Where are their oppressed citizens?

ClevelandBronco
03-15-2010, 02:35 PM
So the questions are "which China has the "big government?" And which one is "enabling big business at citizens' expense?"

My guess is that mainland China has the "bigger government" and that Hong Kong is "enabling big business at citizens' expense." Am I right?

Depends. Some of the wording in your questions makes me wonder if you're confusing Hong Kong with Taiwan.

Jenson71
03-15-2010, 02:41 PM
I've seen many free market advocates point to Dubai as a model.

It's great for businesses because many of the workers are foreigners with few rights, live in hellholes, and get paid almost nothing. Horrible working conditions, but at least the skyline is pretty.

Why do they do it? The Dubain Dream.

orange
03-15-2010, 02:41 PM
I guess you didn't know what I meant by capitalist?

Anyhow, Hong Kong is still listed as the freest economy in the world.Where are their oppressed citizens?

They're the ones who don't have universal suffrage, or freedom of the press, or a minimum wage; whose economy has the worst income distribution in Asia; whose median family income is $15,000; and where 350,000 WORKERS (5% of the population) earn less than $640/month. It's all right there in the first post.

I guess you don't know there's a difference between a free economy and free citizens.

And if you call STATE OWNERSHIP OF BUSINESSES (China) "capitalist" then I certainly don't know what you mean.

orange
03-15-2010, 02:45 PM
Depends. Some of the wording in your questions makes me wonder if you're confusing Hong Kong with Taiwan.

Nope. No confusion. Maybe the "straits" thing might be inaccurate, but one of the articles from HONG KONG I just looked at contrasted HONG KONG with the MAINLAND, so I guess there's some kind of separation there.

Let me have a quick look at a map.

Here we go. It started off as an island, spilled over to the mainland ("New Territories"). I should have said "harbour" not "straits." Referring to themselves as separate from "the mainland" must be a carryover.

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/lgcolor/hkcolor.gif

KC native
03-15-2010, 03:08 PM
Awwwwwww, how cute. TJ and BEP trying to act like they know something about economics again. Hey, TJ, did you even think about our country's anti-trust actions throughout history? ROFL

Taco John
03-15-2010, 03:38 PM
Lots of ad hominem here, but not much refutation of the premise.

KC native
03-15-2010, 03:39 PM
Lots of ad hominem here, but not much refutation of the premise.

ummmm

Awwwwwww, how cute. TJ and BEP trying to act like they know something about economics again. Hey, TJ, did you even think about our country's anti-trust actions throughout history? ROFL

Taco John
03-15-2010, 04:06 PM
Hey, TJ, did you even think about our country's anti-trust actions throughout history? ROFL

Who is the primary beneficiary of an anti-trust action if not big business? It's certainly not the consumer. Just look at what happened with Microsoft for a good example of that.

KC native
03-15-2010, 04:09 PM
Who is the primary beneficiary of an anti-trust action if not big business? It's certainly not the consumer. Just look at what happened with Microsoft for a good example of that.

:spock: I didn't say lack of antitrust actions (which during shrub we didn't have one case). Again we arrive at a point of intentional density because when your ideology is put to the test it fails.

Garcia Bronco
03-15-2010, 04:12 PM
Big Business like big taxes: They pass the tax onto us and make it cost prohibitive for competition.

penchief
03-15-2010, 04:43 PM
Your premise is based on faulty logic and tries to draw a biased conclusion. Does it seem like recent interventions have tended to benefit the corporate establishment? Yes. But that is not because it is inherent with government intervention. It is because government is corrupted by the undue influence of big business. If we can eliminate corporate money and lobbying from the equation, representative government should function more as our founding fathers intended it.

There is a reason that representative government is a good thing. Good public policy is not always the best thing for the profit motive. And what is best for the profit motive is not always good public policy. If we can effectively inhibit the corporate establishment's influence in dictating public policy we might be able to restore our government's integrity.

HC_Chief
03-15-2010, 04:46 PM
Your premise is based on faulty logic and tries to draw a biased conclusion. Does it seem like recent interventions have tended to benefit the corporate establishment? Yes. But that is not because it is inherent with government intervention. It is because government is corrupted by the undue influence of big business. If we can eliminate corporate money and lobbying from the equation, representative government should function more as our founding fathers intended it.

There is a reason that representative government is a good thing. Good public policy is not always the best thing for the profit motive. And what is best for the profit motive is not always good public policy. If we can effectively inhibit the corporate establishment's influence in dictating public policy we might be able to restore our government's integrity.

Do you truly believe government is inherrently pure and only through corporate influence it is corrupted? If not, I think you should work on your message.

JMO

Garcia Bronco
03-15-2010, 04:47 PM
Your premise is based on faulty logic and tries to draw a biased conclusion. Does it seem like recent interventions have tended to benefit the corporate establishment? Yes. But that is not because it is inherent with government intervention. It is because government is corrupted by the undue influence of big business. If we can eliminate corporate money and lobbying from the equation, representative government should function more as our founding fathers intended it.

There is a reason that representative government is a good thing. Good public policy is not always the best thing for the profit motive. And what is best for the profit motive is not always good public policy. If we can effectively inhibit the corporate establishment's influence in dictating public policy we might be able to restore our government's integrity.

When government gets involved other than as an enforcer of laws. It all turns to shit.

Garcia Bronco
03-15-2010, 04:54 PM
Big Business like big taxes: They pass the tax onto us and make it cost prohibitive for competition.

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 05:16 PM
Well, that poll certainly divided along left and right lines.

It doesn't surprise me though. That's because they read all the progressive literature that's so histrionically anti-market. They just don't trust markets. Business is something to fear...literally!

patteeu
03-15-2010, 05:35 PM
Your premise is based on faulty logic and tries to draw a biased conclusion. Does it seem like recent interventions have tended to benefit the corporate establishment? Yes. But that is not because it is inherent with government intervention. It is because government is corrupted by the undue influence of big business. If we can eliminate corporate money and lobbying from the equation, representative government should function more as our founding fathers intended it.

There is a reason that representative government is a good thing. Good public policy is not always the best thing for the profit motive. And what is best for the profit motive is not always good public policy. If we can effectively inhibit the corporate establishment's influence in dictating public policy we might be able to restore our government's integrity.

It sounds to me like this is a round-about way of agreeing with Taco John. You're saying that in a perfect world he'd be wrong, but admitting that we don't live in a perfect world. The only place you differ is that you think utopia is attainable.

HC_Chief
03-15-2010, 05:42 PM
It sounds to me like this is a round-about way of agreeing with Taco John. You're saying that in a perfect world he'd be wrong, but admitting that we don't live in a perfect world. The only place you differ is that you think utopia is attainable.

They had it in the glorious CCCP for a time; until the evil corporate elite tore it all down from the outside.

Bastards!

Taco John
03-15-2010, 06:25 PM
Your premise is based on faulty logic and tries to draw a biased conclusion. Does it seem like recent interventions have tended to benefit the corporate establishment? Yes. But that is not because it is inherent with government intervention. It is because government is corrupted by the undue influence of big business. If we can eliminate corporate money and lobbying from the equation, representative government should function more as our founding fathers intended it.

There is a reason that representative government is a good thing. Good public policy is not always the best thing for the profit motive. And what is best for the profit motive is not always good public policy. If we can effectively inhibit the corporate establishment's influence in dictating public policy we might be able to restore our government's integrity.



So you voted wrong then. You should have voted "True."

cdcox
03-15-2010, 06:27 PM
True or false: the median US worker is better off now than they were in 1925?

Taco John
03-15-2010, 06:31 PM
True or false: the median US worker is better off now than they were in 1925?

That's an interesting and complex question. What's the answer? How has the median US worker faired under 100 years of progressivist governance?

banyon
03-15-2010, 06:40 PM
Big business regulates it's competition so the small guys can never compete against them. The side of anti-trust we never hear about is that it was the competitors that pushed for anti-trust against others. In the case of Standard Oil, they ended up with a larger market share after anti-trust legislation. Another example of unintended consequences.

Hey this distortion again!

It's time for the annual memorial BucEyedPea Standard Oil Market share thread dodge!

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5876366&highlight=standard#post5876366

penchief
03-15-2010, 06:45 PM
Do you truly believe government is inherrently pure and only through corporate influence it is corrupted? If not, I think you should work on your message.

JMO

I don't think government is inherently evil. I believe it is what the people allow it to be. It can be corrupted in a number of ways. And there are times when it is more corrupt than others.

However, the ideal of representative government is not corrupt. And that is what we should always be shooting for. We should be shooting for good public policy dictated by the will of the people and based on pragmatism and the general welfare.

As to our current state of affairs, yes, I believe that the biggest problem this country faces is the fact that our representative government is corrupted by corporate money. So much so that the corporate establishment dictates the condition under which our society exists.

Jenson71
03-15-2010, 06:49 PM
That's an interesting and complex question. What's the answer? How has the median US worker faired under 100 years of progressivist governance?

I think pretty good, how bout you?

cdcox
03-15-2010, 06:51 PM
That's an interesting and complex question. What's the answer? How has the median US worker faired under 100 years of progressivist governance?

I think your original question was equally interesting and complex. I think overall, the government actions and programs have contributed to a better USA than we had before. Has every move that has been made been a favorable one? By no means. But the effect of worker's rights, government funded/supported education, government funded science and technology, the federal highway system, support for the elderly, and a basic safety net for all American's has been such a net good for the economic condition of average Americans, that it covers a whole host of other missteps that have been made through the years.

If you take away SSI, medicare, the GI bill (laid the ground for higher ed for the average american), the federal HWY system, the moon race, and labor laws I think people are much worse off.

I think corporations are better off too.

It's not a zero sum game.

penchief
03-15-2010, 06:53 PM
It sounds to me like this is a round-about way of agreeing with Taco John. You're saying that in a perfect world he'd be wrong, but admitting that we don't live in a perfect world. The only place you differ is that you think utopia is attainable.

Or you can protect the ideals of representative government by regulating the influence of money on public policy.

Government does have a purpose. And one of those purposes is to protect the public good from the impositions of the most powerful. The only thing better for corporate interests than corrupted government is no government at all. Government is the tool that keeps powerful interests honest. Certainly, if those powerful special interests can't completely eliminate government they will do their damnedest to corrupt it.

But that speaks to our laws more than it does representative government. Change the laws so that those with the most money can't write the laws and we might be back in business.

VAChief
03-15-2010, 07:10 PM
TJ - How about some examples of "small governments" where "big business" doesn't run roughshod?

I could maybe list a couple of "small governments" where "big business" DID run roughshod, but you would just claim they weren't really small because the fact that "big business" ran things "proves" they were actually "big governments."

That's where the loading comes in.

Somalia...

penchief
03-15-2010, 07:12 PM
So you voted wrong then. You should have voted "True."

I didn't vote because I think the question is manipulative and tries to lead to a biased conclusion in order to support a faulty premise. It's not as cut and dry as the question would suggest.

State intervention, per se, is not what favors big business. State intervention compelled by the undue influence of special interests is what favors big business. The problem is not government. The problem is undue influence.

Everyone here knows that one of my biggest concerns has always been that the legislative trend of the past 30 years has benefitted the corporate establishment at the expense of the citizenry. But it wasn't always that way. Or at least, good public policy had a fighting chance. Not anymore.

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 08:09 PM
Somalia...

Excellent choice, if I may say so!

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It! (http://mises.org/daily/2066)

http://mises.org/images4/somalia.jpg
Look at that flourishing market!


Even the CIA factbook admits:

"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."


The second sentence, however, depicts Somalia as a lawless country in disorder. As for disorder, Van Notten quotes authorities to the effect that Somalia's telecommunications are the best in Africa, its herding economy is stronger than that of either of its neighbors, Kenya or Ethiopia, and that since the demise of the central government, the Somali shilling has become far more stable in world currency markets, while exports have quintupled.

As for Somalia being lawless, Van Notten, a Dutch lawyer who married into the Samaron Clan and lived the last dozen years of his life with them, specifically challenges that portrayal. He explains that Somalia is a country based on customary law. The traditional Somali system of law and politics, he contends, is capable of maintaining a peaceful society and guiding the Somalis to prosperity. Moreover, efforts to re-establish a central government or impose democracy on the people are incompatible with the customary law.

The killing and shooting we hear about on our news is really due to weak-to-invisible transitional government in Mogadishu ( which they like and do well under) will become a real government with actual power.

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 08:10 PM
How about the early days of the American Republic? That's another good time. That is after the depression that followed the war which was financed via inflation.

banyon
03-15-2010, 08:15 PM
Holy s*** that is some of the most pie-in-the-sky delusional stuff I have ever read.

That is hilarious. LMAO

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 08:25 PM
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/hongkong

With business freedom at 98.7%

Looks like it slipped .3 percent though and some progressive ideas are filtering in. But it hasn't been wrecked yet. "Hong Kong’s competitive tax regime, respect for property rights, and flexible labor market, coupled with an educated and highly motivated workforce, have stimulated an innovative, prosperous economy. Hong Kong is one of the world’s leading financial and business centers, and its legal and regulatory framework for the financial sector is transparent and efficient. Business regulation is straightforward."

"Hong Kong’s effective tax rates are among the lowest in the world. Individuals are taxed either progressively, between 2 percent and 17 percent on income adjusted for deductions and allowances, or at a flat 15 percent of gross income, depending on which liability is lower. The top corporate income tax rate is 16.5 percent. "

"Total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, are low. In the most recent year, government spending equaled 14.5 percent of GDP. Disciplined fiscal management has helped Hong Kong to weather the global downturn. The government has made efforts to maintain a balanced budget. State ownership is mostly limited to transportation."

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 08:26 PM
If I recall we were in 4th place a couple of years ago. We are are slipping. Even Switzlerland is ahead of us.

http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 08:30 PM
And Hong Kong has a high standard of living too.

Hong Kong reverted to Chinese rule in 1997. During that year, Hong Kong experienced a major economic disruption. In the two decades since that time, Hong Kong has remained a vibrant economy with a relatively high standard of living.

http://www.sightseeing-china.com/a49994-an-overview-of-hong-kong-today.cfm

WoodDraw
03-15-2010, 08:35 PM
If I recall we were in 4th place a couple of years ago. We are are slipping. Even Switzlerland is ahead of us.

http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx

"Even Switzerland"? Switzerland has always had a relatively open economy with low taxes. I assume that's what the Heritage foundation rates everyone on.

orange
03-15-2010, 08:50 PM
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/hongkong

With business freedom at 98.7%

...


The next two lines after your quote:

"Even in an economy as free as Hong Kong’s, threats to freedom can arise. Though the introduction of competition legislation was postponed in April 2009, a minimum wage bill was introduced in June, with implementation forecast for late 2010 or early 2011."

Heritage considers a minimum wage a "threat to freedom."

It should come as no surprise to you that I am of the diametrically opposite opinion.

Frankly, their ratings are horse manure.

Are you ready to lower your family's income to $15,000 like most of the folks there in Capitalistparadise?


http://www.stolenchildhood.net/images/somalia_kids_c5.jpg
Wingers new song: "Like Somalia. I want to be like Somalia."

orange
03-15-2010, 08:57 PM
And Hong Kong has a high standard of living too.
http://www.sightseeing-china.com/a49994-an-overview-of-hong-kong-today.cfm

Do you ever even read what you post?

Whereas Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea all started out as low-cost, labor-intensive manufacturing bases, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea have all developed high-technology industries, whereas Hong Kong has become a services center for companies (foreign as well as those from Hong Kong) doing business in China. The structure of the economy has therefore changed dramatically over the past decade: the manufacturing sector contributed just 5% of GDP in 2001, compared with 14.4% in 1991, and in 2002 employed only 9% of the labor force. The manufacturing sector has been replaced by a rapidly expanded services sector. Wholesale, retail and import/export trades, and community, social, and personal services are Hong Kong's two largest services sectors in 2002 (The Economist, 2004).

With the government averse to regulation, Hong Kong has traditionally lacked the legislative and institutional measures that are used elsewhere to encourage competition. Partly because of this, there has been criticism that the domestic economy is monopolized by a few powerful local conglomerates. For instance, just two chains—Wellcome and Park 'n Shop—dominate the supermarket industry. These two firms are in turn owned by conglomerates, Jardine Matheson and Hutchison Whampoa respectively, which have a range of other interests in Hong Kong, owning, for example, major land developers.


psssst - don't tell Pat Buchanan:

The current economy is supported by the boost from Mainland tourism, the strengthening of the global economy, the advent of a new free trade zone between China and Hong Kong, as well as the associated improvement in domestic consumer sentiment (IMF Hong Kong Staff Visit, 2003).

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 10:22 PM
"Even Switzerland"? Switzerland has always had a relatively open economy with low taxes. I assume that's what the Heritage foundation rates everyone on.

Yes, I know but it has actually slipped too, and due to more progressivism.
That compilation is being used by others such as liberal institutions like the NY Times, WSJ and wiki. And economists like Friedman and Cato used Hong Kong as an example. It's pretty accepted...and they show you what they used to arrive at it. So no, it's not just based on low tax rates, but regulation and positive non-interventionism. It's been rated the freest economy in the world for 15 years.

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 10:24 PM
The next two lines after your quote:

"Even in an economy as free as Hong Kong’s, threats to freedom can arise. Though the introduction of competition legislation was postponed in April 2009, a minimum wage bill was introduced in June, with implementation forecast for late 2010 or early 2011."

Heritage considers a minimum wage a "threat to freedom."

It should come as no surprise to you that I am of the diametrically opposite opinion.

Frankly, their ratings are horse manure.

Are you ready to lower your family's income to $15,000 like most of the folks there in Capitalistparadise?

Wingers new song: "Like Somalia. I want to be like Somalia."

You asked for an example of a free economy. I gave you one. That your values are different is another topic. I didn't expect you to agree. But it's been rated the freest for the past 15 years by a number of places and even the liberal NY Times cites the Heritage study—which is transparent in what they use for criteria. So getting a boost in tourism from the mainland is just a boost on top of what was considered a very free economy even back in the 80's. See my response to WoodDraw. That you consider it horse manure is just your opinion.

And I didn't say Somalia's govt/legal system was based on natural law which is what would allow them a system like ours. Somalia is undeveloped. Countries like that don't develop hi tech overnight. Still, the people do not want a strong central govt imposed on them. They are resisting it despite the progressives at the UN shoving it down their throats. If they want law based on custom's that's their right to their own determination. The conflict is caused by outsiders. They still have their own markets though.

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 10:32 PM
Do you ever even read what you post?

Whereas Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea all started out as low-cost, labor-intensive manufacturing bases, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea have all developed high-technology industries, whereas Hong Kong has become a services center for companies (foreign as well as those from Hong Kong) doing business in China. The structure of the economy has therefore changed dramatically over the past decade: the manufacturing sector contributed just 5% of GDP in 2001, compared with 14.4% in 1991, and in 2002 employed only 9% of the labor force. The manufacturing sector has been replaced by a rapidly expanded services sector. Wholesale, retail and import/export trades, and community, social, and personal services are Hong Kong's two largest services sectors in 2002 (The Economist, 2004).

With the government averse to regulation, Hong Kong has traditionally lacked the legislative and institutional measures that are used elsewhere to encourage competition. Partly because of this, there has been criticism that the domestic economy is monopolized by a few powerful local conglomerates. For instance, just two chains—Wellcome and Park 'n Shop—dominate the supermarket industry. These two firms are in turn owned by conglomerates, Jardine Matheson and Hutchison Whampoa respectively, which have a range of other interests in Hong Kong, owning, for example, major land developers.


psssst - don't tell Pat Buchanan:

The current economy is supported by the boost from Mainland tourism, the strengthening of the global economy, the advent of a new free trade zone between China and Hong Kong, as well as the associated improvement in domestic consumer sentiment (IMF Hong Kong Staff Visit, 2003).

Do you ever understand what is posted? I don't think you really know what a free-market means? Some govt and some regs do not make a market unfree. It's the kind and amount. And I don't have a problem with some of the things you selected. They are being affected by globalization like everyone else too.

The Heritage numbers I gave you are the most recent as of 2010. And yes, I am aware of some of the criticism about it, as well as where the govt plays a role. Hong Kong still is the most free economy in the world today. "The Index measures restrictions on business, trade, investment, finance, property rights and labour and considers the impact of corruption, government size and monetary controls in 183 economies. Hong Kong is the only one to have ever scored 90 points or above on the 100 point scale." -wiki

orange
03-15-2010, 10:44 PM
You asked for an example of a free economy.

No, I asked for an example of a "small government" where "big business" doesn't ride roughshod over citizens:

TJ - How about some examples of "small governments" where "big business" doesn't run roughshod?


And you provided an example of a government which - while it doesn't inhibit the multinational corporations who base there - does maintain order through oppression (limits on voting and speech) which I would certainly classify as "big government" - but I can see where it wouldn't fit your and TJ's definition. Nevertheless, it's also an example of a country where "big business" runs roughshod over the citizens - the economic gains by the multinational banks et al have gutted the local industry, produced monopoly control of the local economy, and translated to the worst and worsening income distribution in Asia. That's pretty much "running roughshod" as I see it.

By your own link two big consortiums control the food market with tentacles into other industries, land, etc. If that isn't "big business," what the hell is?

Heritage Foundation's ratings of "economic freedom" are used by rightists. People to whom it doesn't matter that the serfs are impoverished. Don't pretend they're accepted as authoritative by anyone else.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 08:31 AM
An example of the way regulation tends to benefit big business over their smaller competitors from Ed Morrissey of HotAir (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/28/another-obamacare-mandate-we-had-to-discover-after-its-passage/):

Nancy Pelosi told the public that we’d have to pass ObamaCare to find out all of the surprises Democrats had loaded into it. Since its passage, we’ve discovered a number of them, including the elimination of a tax credit that kept seniors on private medication coverage that has forced publicly-held corporations like AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere, and Verizon to take massive charges against this year’s earnings. Earlier this week, the Associated Press discovered a new mandate, this time on chain restaurants, that is at once petty, paternalistic, and anti-growth:

A requirement tucked into the nation’s massive health care bill will make calorie counts impossible for thousands of restaurants to hide and difficult for consumers to ignore. More than 200,000 fast food and other chain restaurants will have to include calorie counts on menus, menu boards and even drive-throughs.

The new law, which applies to any restaurant with 20 or more locations, directs the Food and Drug Administration to create a new national standard for menu labeling, superseding a growing number of state and city laws. President Barack Obama was expected to sign the health care legislation Tuesday.

The idea is to make sure that customers process the calorie information as they are ordering. Many restaurants currently post nutritional information in a hallway, on a hamburger wrapper or on their Web site. The new law will make calories immediately available for most items.

“The nutrition information is right on the menu or menu board next to the name of the menu item, rather than in a pamphlet or in tiny print on a poster, so that consumers can see it when they are making ordering decisions,” says Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, who wrote the provision.

What’s wrong with getting calorie counts? Nothing, really. As a Type II diabetic myself, it helps to know calories and carbs when planning meals or medication responses. A friend of mine, Col. Joe Repya, gave me a handy wallet-sized card shortly after my diagnosis that allows me to estimate carbs and calories while at home or away, and plenty of other resources exist for the same purpose, many of them on the Internet.

In fact, many chain restaurants already provide this information to consumers on the Internet. Just to take one example: Chili’s. Their website features a prominent link to the nutritional information for their standard menu items. That’s how I know that their Oldtimer burger is 1260 calories, including the fries, the lowest-calorie burger dinner they offer. The Jalapeno Smokehouse Burger w/ Jalapeno Ranch dinner comes in at a whopping 2,130 calories.

But let’s be serious. No one who’s seriously concerned about caloric intake is going to order the gigantic Jalapeno Smokehouse Burger w/ Jalapeno Ranch dinner. Most people have the common sense to know that big burgers and whopping mounds of fries will total a huge number of calories, no matter where one buys or makes dinner. Responsible adults can navigate a menu on their own to choose the healthier options, if they want to do so, without forcing restauranteurs to conduct the kind of lab analyses necessary to give accurate calorie counts for menus.

The impact on businesses will be disproportionate to their size. Large restaurant chains with standardized menus can handle this mandate less expensively per dinner sold, thanks to the economies of scale, which is why Chili’s has the information on their national website. Chains under 20 locations will get exempt. But what about those chains with just over 20 locations?

Davanni’s, a local pizzeria-sandwich restaurant with 22 locations around the Twin Cities, will now have to comply with this mandate. A caller to my Saturday show (who wished to remain anonymous) told my radio partner Mitch Berg during a commercial break that it will cost Davanni’s approximately $200,000 to comply with the new mandate — just to start. Every menu change will require Davanni’s to have the new or modified items re-analyzed, which means that Davanni’s will probably resist adding new options for their customers. Meanwhile, larger chains with more economy of scale for such efforts such as Pizza Hut can do the tests once for all of their locations, keeping their prices lower for their customers — which they already do, thanks to consumer demand for the information.

Under those circumstances, will Davanni’s feel compelled to keep the extra three locations open, or to scale back to 19 to avoid the mandate? Even if they do keep all of their locations, that $200,000 will now get spent on something other than new jobs for teenagers and adults, and customers will pay higher prices for their food. Local and regional chains with 15-19 locations have a big economic disincentive to expand any further. I don’t know much about Davanni’s bottom line, but I’m pretty sure that even though they make some of the best pizza and hoagies in the area, they don’t have $200,000 lying around the pizza sauce to blow on lab analyses this year, or any other.

This is a fundamentally anti-growth policy — and in service of what? A federal mandate to treat adults like children, as though someone buying a pizza might be under the delusion that they’re ordering health food. That’s not even considering the question of jurisdiction on chains like Davanni’s which don’t cross state lines, and therefore shouldn’t have to answer to federal regulators at all. This is a textbook case of elitist snobbery trumping common sense, where the governing elite just assumes that Americans can’t decide for themselves what foods to eat.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 09:45 AM
BucEyedPea,

Was there something about that last post that upset you enough to justify your vulgar rep message ("you're an asshole") or is it just a random comment from a crazy lady?

Reaper16
03-29-2010, 05:53 PM
I'm not about to feel sorry for a 20 location chain.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 06:27 PM
I'm not about to feel sorry for a 20 location chain.

What about consumers who end up with less variety and more national chain foods instead?

Whether you feel sorry for them or not, do you understand how this particular government action favors big business over the smaller local chain?

Taco John
03-29-2010, 06:32 PM
I'm not about to feel sorry for a 20 location chain.


That's because you don't understand the issues. It's not only the 20 location chain who gets hurt here. It's the people that they would have employed if they didn't have to waste their money on mandates that their customers aren't demanding of them - not to mention the local economy.

For my part, I'm a calorie counter. I have a program on my phone that I use to calculate my daily intake. There are countless resources for me to use to guesstimate calories where I can't find them. And when I find a place that doesn't list them, I write their marketing department and let them know that they're losing my business by not presenting them. It's up to them to do the economic calculus at that point based on the demand by similar feedback that they've received..

I have no desire for government to mandate this information, despite the fact that it would be helpful to me. Calorie counting is important to me, and I've been able to succeed without needing a government solution.

As is typical with progressive legislation, the most entrenched status-quo corporations will benefit while the up-and-comers will be hurt.

Taco John
03-29-2010, 06:33 PM
Who else is a calorie counter here? I'd guess that there's less than 5% of Americans who would self identify themselves as a bonafide calorie counter.

I can take any meal and boil the entire thing down to calories - so long as I can identify what's in it - without even needing a reference at this point.

Reaper16
03-29-2010, 09:09 PM
What about consumers who end up with less variety and more national chain foods instead?

Whether you feel sorry for them or not, do you understand how this particular government action favors big business over the smaller local chain?



As is typical with progressive legislation, the most entrenched status-quo corporations will benefit while the up-and-comers will be hurt.

I don't subscribe to this apparent notion that viable competition to gigantic corporate chains, true up-and-comer status, is the 20+ location regional chain. Those chains themselves do the same kind of damage that larger chains do.

Maybe I would cede your point when there is another industry used as the example. But I can't feel sorry for something that is anathema to my views of food.

WoodDraw
03-29-2010, 09:13 PM
That's because you don't understand the issues. It's not only the 20 location chain who gets hurt here. It's the people that they would have employed if they didn't have to waste their money on mandates that their customers aren't demanding of them - not to mention the local economy.


Nah, that's not true. All of these chains already have the information. Most post it on their website already.

WoodDraw
03-29-2010, 09:15 PM
http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/eat/nutrition_info.html
http://www.bk.com/en/us/menu-nutrition/index.html
http://www.tacobell.com/nutrition/
http://www.panerabread.com/pdf/nutr-guide.pdf
http://www.chipotle.com/ChipotleNutrition.pdf

And so on, and so on...

patteeu
03-29-2010, 09:58 PM
Nah, that's not true. All of these chains already have the information. Most post it on their website already.

http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/eat/nutrition_info.html
http://www.bk.com/en/us/menu-nutrition/index.html
http://www.tacobell.com/nutrition/
http://www.panerabread.com/pdf/nutr-guide.pdf
http://www.chipotle.com/ChipotleNutrition.pdf

And so on, and so on...

Posting it on the website isn't enough (I assume you know this, but I can't tell for sure).

He's not talking about the big chains like McDonalds and Taco Bell. He's talking about the ones that barely exceed the threshold for this legislation, like Davanni's, mentioned in post 76, for which the cost of compliance with this law is roughly $200,000 (according to Ed Morrissey), despite the fact that they already provide nutritional information on their website. Any changes to the menu would require analysis of the new food item and changes to the menu.

And any chain that is at 19 restaurants now has a significant cost disincentive against opening that 20th store.

This obviously isn't going to destroy the economy, but it's economic drag nonetheless even though it's well intended. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the benefit outweighs the cost here, but that wasn't the point anyway. The point was that it's a hardly noticeable amount of drag on large chains like McDonalds, but it's significantly more impactful for smaller chains like Davanni's. It's an example of the way government regulation often has greater impact on the small guy because the big guy has the resources and the economy of scale to navigate the regulatory landscape more easily.

Taco John
03-29-2010, 11:25 PM
I don't subscribe to this apparent notion that viable competition to gigantic corporate chains, true up-and-comer status, is the 20+ location regional chain. Those chains themselves do the same kind of damage that larger chains do.

Damage? How are you defining damage?


Maybe I would cede your point when there is another industry used as the example. But I can't feel sorry for something that is anathema to my views of food.

Oh, I see. You're talking about your judgement of other people's diets. Never mind. I was talking about economics, not any random individuals judgement on how other people should act to conform with his own standards. I don't care how other people eat unless they ask me my opinion on it.

Reaper16
03-29-2010, 11:32 PM
Damage? How are you defining damage?




Oh, I see. You're talking about your judgement of other people's diets. Never mind. I was talking about economics, not any random individuals judgement on how other people should act to conform with his own standards. I don't care how other people eat unless they ask me my opinion on it.
Yes, I was. I could have generalized it a bit and said that I don't give a shit about companies who are trying to up-and-come to the status of their gigantic competition.

This example doesn't hold weight for me. I can see from the example where large regional chains of 20 locations or more are going to be hurt more than gigantic, nationally established chains. It will hurt the large regional chains' chances of becoming one of the gigantic, nationally established chains. My reaction to that is: well, fucking good. I don't want to see more gigantic, nationally established chains.

Taco John
03-29-2010, 11:34 PM
Yes, I was. I could have generalized it a bit and said that I don't give a shit about companies who are trying to up-and-come to the status of their gigantic competition.

This example doesn't hold weight for me. I can see from the example where large regional chains of 20 locations or more are going to be hurt more than gigantic, nationally established chains. It will hurt the large regional chains' chances of becoming one of the gigantic, nationally established chains. My reaction to that is: well, ****ing good. I don't want to see more gigantic, nationally established chains.


Pinko. :)

Reaper16
03-29-2010, 11:38 PM
Pinko. :)
And I can understand someone saying to me "Hey, Reaper, at least let those chains aspiring to be gigantic succeed or fail on their own merits. Don't legislate them into failure." But if they want to become gigantic and compete on that scale with long-established brands then it isn't a good sign that adding calorie counts to the menu would prevent them from doing that. Innovate more or something.

This is for the common good. It isn't dooming any chain to bankruptcy and if it is then that chain probably needed to be scaled back in location count in the first place.

Taco John
03-29-2010, 11:53 PM
And I can understand someone saying to me "Hey, Reaper, at least let those chains aspiring to be gigantic succeed or fail on their own merits. Don't legislate them into failure." But if they want to become gigantic and compete on that scale with long-established brands then it isn't a good sign that adding calorie counts to the menu would prevent them from doing that. Innovate more or something.

This is for the common good. It isn't dooming any chain to bankruptcy and if it is then that chain probably needed to be scaled back in location count in the first place.


What common good? Where was the people's cry to the government to make this happen - to save us from the wretched food chains who will only post their nutritional information online? Where was this cry?

You have a wild imagination about what constitutes as "common good."

Reaper16
03-30-2010, 01:38 AM
What common good? Where was the people's cry to the government to make this happen - to save us from the wretched food chains who will only post their nutritional information online? Where was this cry?

You have a wild imagination about what constitutes as "common good."
There wasn't any such cry. I wasn't crying for it. I can appreciate it being there.

Taco John
03-30-2010, 01:46 AM
There wasn't any such cry. I wasn't crying for it. I can appreciate it being there.


I'll bet you can TipperGore16.

patteeu
03-30-2010, 06:38 AM
I'll bet you can TipperGore16.

LMAO

patteeu
04-01-2010, 11:29 AM
An interview with the guy who owns the Davanni pizzeria chain, that was mentioned in an post 76, talking about the impact of the new federal mandates on his industry:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3W8D7pflcwM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3W8D7pflcwM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

orange
01-25-2012, 03:13 PM
2012

What Western society citizen would in their right mind step a single foot into Somalia?

.......

2009

TJ - How about some examples of "small governments" where "big business" doesn't run roughshod?

I could maybe list a couple of "small governments" where "big business" DID run roughshod, but you would just claim they weren't really small because the fact that "big business" ran things "proves" they were actually "big governments."

That's where the loading comes in.

Somalia...




Somalia...
Excellent choice, if I may say so!

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It! (http://mises.org/daily/2066)

http://mises.org/images4/somalia.jpg
Look at that flourishing market!


Even the CIA factbook admits:

"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."

The second sentence, however, depicts Somalia as a lawless country in disorder. As for disorder, Van Notten quotes authorities to the effect that Somalia's telecommunications are the best in Africa, its herding economy is stronger than that of either of its neighbors, Kenya or Ethiopia, and that since the demise of the central government, the Somali shilling has become far more stable in world currency markets, while exports have quintupled.

As for Somalia being lawless, Van Notten, a Dutch lawyer who married into the Samaron Clan and lived the last dozen years of his life with them, specifically challenges that portrayal. He explains that Somalia is a country based on customary law. The traditional Somali system of law and politics, he contends, is capable of maintaining a peaceful society and guiding the Somalis to prosperity. Moreover, efforts to re-establish a central government or impose democracy on the people are incompatible with the customary law.




The killing and shooting we hear about on our news is really due to weak-to-invisible transitional government in Mogadishu ( which they like and do well under) will become a real government with actual power.


http://www.gooh.net/alislax/images/gggtt.jpg

Wingers new song: "Like Somalia. I want to be like Somalia."